MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003129811 · doi:10.1002/mus.10372

The H‐reflex as a tool in neurophysiology: Its limitations and uses in understanding nervous system function

2003· review· en· W2003129811 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMuscle & Nerve · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVestibular and auditory disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroscienceReflexNeurophysiologyH-reflexAfferentMotor controlPsychologyMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Hoffmann reflex (H-reflex) is extensively used as both a research and clinical tool. The ease with which this reflex can be elicited in several muscles throughout the body makes it an attractive tool. This review discusses some of the important limitations in using the H-reflex. In particular, the inaccurate but widely held assumptions that the H-reflex (1). represents the monosynaptic reflex of the Ia afferent onto homonymous motoneurons, and (2). can be used to measure motoneuronal excitability are addressed. The second part of this review explores the utility of the H-reflex as a neural probe in neurophysiology and motor control research. Applications ranging from the investigation of the functional organization of neural circuitry to the study of adaptive plasticity in spinal structures in health and disease suggest that the H-reflex will continue to be an extensively used tool in motor control neurophysiology.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.899

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.190
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.130 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it